I thought I was describing the status quo and what is currently happening. Unless the IAB has handed off that responsibility to the IESG in the last two years (in which case the community wasn't told), the IESG's having any discussion at all with the RFC Editor about an IAB document -- what is in that category, how they are handled, etc.-- is because the IAB asks for that discussion. It presumably also occurs in a three-way environment, even if the IAB decides to be silent about particular aspects of the conversation.
john
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:27 AM -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/10/04 at 10:54 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a potential addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of documents from other SDOs - the IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on which documents these are
awkward wording - maybe you want to say
o The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on which documents require special rules (for example, IAB documents, April 1st RFCs, and republication of documents from other SDOs)
Scott, while I agree that the current language is not optimal, I don't think the above is the right fix. The whole point of the agreements about publication of IAB documents is that the RFC Editor reports, from an overall policy and strategy standpoint, with the IAB. Turning that situation into "the IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue" rather dramatically revises (or confuses) that situation.
John, the paragraph which Scott aims to fix is in the section which describes "what is currently happening". And, indeed, I believe it is true that the current state of affairs is that the IESG and the RFC Editor *do* keep a running dialogue about out-of-the-ordinary documents which may or may not need IESG review (where republication of certain SDO documents do -- because of liaison agreements -- and April 1st RFCs do not, as far as I know).
Perhaps this would be better stated as:
o The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on which documents require special rules (for example, IAB informational documents and April 1st RFCs never require IESG review, whereas certain republication of documents from other SDOs do because of liaison agreements)
(assuming that captures what Harald, and Scott, intended in their attempts).
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf